Gatty Murine Laboratory/, St. Andrews. 35 



ill lateral view, whereas in Enchone ana/is tlie number of 

 tcetli is nearly doubled, and a di(lerenti;itiou of this rejj^ion 

 from that of the great fang is evident. The base is curiously 

 diminished and narrowed posteriorly, but the prow is large 

 and rounded. The posterior hooks are even more diagnostic 

 than tlie anterior. The posterior outline is convex, with a 

 slight iutlection below the crown, and a short posterior curve 

 at the base, which is small. The great fang is long and 

 sharp, and on the crown above it are six or seven distinct 

 teeth. The anterior outline begins at a little less than a 

 right angle, gently curves forward to the prow, which 

 inferiorly blends with the short truncate base. The lower 

 j)art of the neck and body have curved stri.e. lu structure, 

 therefore, these hooks diH'er from those of E. analis, Kn'Jyer, 

 and E. paiJillosa, Sars. Neither is figured by .Malmgren. 



The representatives of the genus Chone in northern waters 

 seem to be in a somewhat confused condition, since the 

 young of certain forms have been described as dillerent 

 si)eeies. At least five species, however, arc clearly defined, 

 viz. the characteristic Chone infundidulifor/nis, Kroycr, of the 

 arctic seas, which appears to be rare in most collections, but 

 •was procured by the 'Valorous' in 1875. This form has 

 often bceu confounded with another species, viz. Chone 

 duneri, Malmgren — indeed, in a named collection from 

 Greenland, procured in the sixties of last century, it is 

 labelled C. infuadibuliformis. Yet the form of the tips 

 of the branchiiC in the latter, the structure of its hooks, 

 especially the avicular posterior hooks, the bristles, and other 

 features are diagnostic. 



The original description of C. infundibulifonnis by Kroyer "'^, 

 although unfortunately he gives no figure, is clear in regard 

 to the stiucture of the branchiae, the collar, the size, and 

 other features. He adds that it is not rare in Greeulandic 

 seas, and that it inhabits a cutieular tube devoid of mud ; 

 yet modern naturalists seem to have seldom met with it. 

 Its posterior hooks are so characteristic that no confusion 

 ^ith C. duneri need occur — even in young forms of each 

 species. Of course, it may be a question what form Kroyer 

 meant by his C. infundibulifonnis, since both it and C. duneri 

 are found in the arctic seas, bat the typical C. infundibuli- 

 forniis is chiefly arctic in distribution, whereas C. duneri has 

 a much wider range. After careful consideration of Mabu- 

 gren's views and various specimens, it has been deemed 

 prudent to adhere to the diagnosis indicated above. It is, 

 liowever, right to state that Prof. Fauvcl and others hold 



* Oversigt Kgl. danske Videnskub. SL-lskabs Forbaudl. 1 806- 57, p. 3.".. 



